Survey responses

January 20, 1991

DIPLOMACY DROPPED IN THE RUSH TO WAR

In the Jan. 13 issue, prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Kuwait, The Harford County Sun asked readers if they supported military intervention in the Persian Gulf to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The responses we are publishing here are being mailed to Harford's two congressional representatives: Helen D. Bentley, R-2nd, and Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-1st.

DIPLOMACY DROPPED IN THE RUSH TO WAR

From: Christiane Simon

Edgewood

I do not support an offensive war in the Middle East. Notenough time was given for diplomacy to work. Too soon Iraq was threatened without a face-saving way out. A cornered rat will fight. Thereare not enough reasons to shed our young people's blood.

A war islike a fire: Once started, no one knows if it can be contained or put out.

LET THE ARABS SETTLEKUWAIT THEMSELVES

From: Robert M. Glover

Bel Air

I do not support the military intervention by the United States in the Middle East.

On March 22, 1945, the Arab League was formed by the Arab Nations. The league takes care of economic,cultural and communication ties and mediates disputes among the Arabstates.

Therefore, I think that they should solve their own conflicts. We, the United States, are plagued with our own problems. Will the United States send troops to Lithuania to stop the senseless killing of the people there?

Same atrocities? Different stakes!

FAITH IN BUSH'S PLEA FOR PEACE MISPLACED

From: Joseph M. Dunch

Forest Hill

I actually had a faint trace of faith in George Bush when the original option of economic sanctions appeared to be the course he would pursue, and I was cautiously comforted by the fact that he had apparently recaptured some of the sanity seemingly abandoned in thetrigger-happy Reagan years. It was however, and ultimately, a fleeting comfort, and that trace of faith is vanishing, wafting away like fumes escaping from carelessly spilled gasoline.

I keep circling his statement that he will do everything possible to maintain peace, but that the choice is now Saddam Hussein's. (Uh, pardon me, but could you please repeat that, Mr. President?) I keep circling, looking for a way in, a way to penetrate the cryptic logic. Excuse me, but this rhetoric seems to have fallen from a page of "Catch-22." The words aredripping with potential tragedy. Why, I ask, can't we make the choice for peace? Why must we rely on someone who welcomes the Hitler comparisons as flattery? What is the bloody hurry for war? Because it is now a cheaper alternative than maintaining the mammoth crusade force we've assembled in search of the oily grail?

I am at once disgusted, horrified, perplexed and saddened that the prospect of tens of thousands of dead bodies now is somehow a more sensible notion than eventhe possibility of an economic squeeze working sometime in the near or distant future. I guess I'm a wimp. I guess I just don't have the stomach for carnage that the president possesses. I decline the invitation to acquire one, and I do not back his actions.

All we are saying is . . . Wait! I don't have to quote John Lennon here, do I? Everybody knows the words. Well, we had all better open our mouths and say them soon, for crying out loud. If we don't, we should expect the crying to be much louder. And much longer.